Differentiated Capabilities
Demand Planning
A consensus forecast built on accuracy, not authority.
Request DemoConventional demand planning treats stakeholder collaboration as the primary mechanism for reaching a consensus forecast, collecting inputs, surfacing disagreements, and negotiating a number. It is now well established that a heavier reliance on statistical weighting of inputs utilizing historical accuracy measures produces more reliable plans. Collaboration remains essential, but in a different role: clarifying assumptions, supplying the model with information it cannot observe on its own, and discussing what lower probability assumptions should be tested.
Key Features:
- ML-weighted consensus forecast — sales, marketing, operations, and statistical inputs are each scored on historical accuracy; the final plan weights every source by what it has demonstrably gotten right, not by organizational rank or loudest voice
- Sell-In / Sell-Through channel visibility — see what’s selling through to end customers at the distributor tier, not just what’s shipping in; plan against real end-market demand rather than inventory accumulating silently in the channel
- Attribute-aware forecasting for configured products — forecast at the attribute level for complex MTO, CTO, and ETO environments without a SKU explosion; demand signals for specific configurations flow directly into supply planning via the same ABP architecture
- AI/ML statistical forecasting with configurable causal factors — encoding the information the model cannot directly observe, including promotions, pricing actions, market events, and supplier constraints — with automated exception workflows to surface where human judgment is needed
- Currency-to-unit forecast translation at any level of aggregation, disaggregated automatically by any measure
- Product lifecycle management from NPI ramp through end-of-life — with phase-in/phase-out curves to prevent forecast distortion at lifecycle transitions
- Structured scenario planning for low-probability, high-impact assumptions — allowing teams to test alternative futures, compare plan sensitivity, and align on which risks warrant contingency action
- Unlimited parallel hierarchies for drill-up/down across product, customer, geography, or any planning dimension
- Excel Pivot Table UI, HTML5 browser interface, and live Power BI connectivity
GET IN TOUCH
Request a Demo
Contact usResources
-

Article
Eyelit Technologies Version 10.2 Release Notes
Eyelit Version 10.2 builds on the foundation laid in 10.1. Agent EyeQ takes on a larger role in planning, engineer-to-order…
Read more
-

Article
Supplying the mix: planning the factory, suppliers and subcontractors for ETO and CTO manufacturers
Part 3 of 3: Planning what you haven’t designed yet Part 2 ended with a forecast of each model and…
Read more
-

Article
Forecasting the mix: demand planning for ETO and CTO manufacturers
Part 2 of 3: Planning what you haven’t designed yet In Part 1, we made the case for planning the…
Read more
-

Article
Why ETO and CTO manufacturers still plan in spreadsheets, and what to plan instead
Part 1 of 3: Planning what you haven’t designed yet Put an S&OP manager from an engineer-to-order (ETO) or configure-to-order…
Read more
